Thursday, 20 September 2012

SCOTLAND'S SOUR LITTLE SWEETIE

I love my country but sometimes I weep for it. Scotland has given the world Robert Burns, one of the greatest lyric poets ever, Adam Smith, the towering intellect behind "The Wealth Of Nations", and William Wallace, a beacon for freedom lovers everywhere. Down the centuries Scots have spread across the Globe benefitting many other countries with their business acumen, inventions and, like Adam Smith, their influential ideas.

Now, though, our country is being increasingly tormented by a bunch of moral and intellectual pygmies masquerading as politicians in the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood in Edinburgh. With very few exceptions they are small people with no great ability and even less vision. They are "seat warmers" whose greatest ambition (this is particularly true of the increasingly dictatorial Scottish National Party) is to keep drawing their salary whilst poking their grubby little fingers into every area of people's lives, no matter how private.
If they have an aptitude for anything it is for arrogance and impertinence and right at the moment the chief culprit is the Deputy First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon.

Ms. Sturgeon is what is known in Scotland as a "nippy sweetie". Loosely translated this implies something that seems rather sweet but that can turn rather sour and bitter if you get too close.. Ms. Sturgeon is not so much a politician trying to serve her countrymen (that would require a modicum of humility and the lady does not do humility) more of a hectoring schoolmistress or a sort of toxic "den mother".

Her current obsession is enabling gay couples to marry in Church. Nanny......sorry Ms. Sturgeon says:
"We are committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal...............we believe it is the right thing to do!"

This is despite the fact that 64% of the people who responded to the Scottish Parliament's Referendum on the subject ( that's 3 times more than the people who responded to the referendum on Scottish separation from the U.K.) were against gay marriage.

Many rightly fear that clergy who do not agree with the proposed changes could be prosecuted for refusing to marry gays in Church. Sturgeon has made airy claims that the law will be amended to prevent this happening but she must know that she has no power to keep that promise.......even if she ever intended to.

The European Court Of Human Rights has said that while gay marriage in Church is not a "Human Right", if any Government gives gay marriage the "green light" then gays must be allowed to marry in Church. Still, "the nippy sweetie" insists in making her unkeepable promises.

A recent survey came to the conclusion that less than 2% per cent of the overall population are gay. Probably half of them are never likely to want to marry in Church anyway and so, for the sake of 1% of the population, she is willing to snub 64% of it. This is State aided tyranny of the minority. It is manifestly NOT democracy.

Gays are NOT persecuted in Scotland. They have huge freedom and if they so desperately want to be able to marry in Church is it not feasible for them to form their own denomination?

Most people who balk at the reforms could probably be placated if gays were told that if they could find a Church willing to marry them all well and good but it is this element of compulsion that alarms and religious groups quite rightly see it as an interference too far. What price freedom of belief now?

"Belief" - that is the key word. Ms. Sturgeon and too many like her have no discernible beliefs other than their own right to power and their own rightness .............see again Sturgeon's self serving quote. They pride themselves on dragging Scotland into the 21st century but if clergy go to jail for their beliefs is that not dragging us back to the 17th.

She and her ilk, holed up in Holyrood, that coccoon at the bottom of the Royal Mile, have become more and more distanced from the lives of ordinary people who are in no way homophobic. Looking for "brownie points" from the militant gay lobby will do the general gay population no favours at all.

I don't give much for Scotland's future if it does break away from the rest of the U.K. If Sturgeon and her kind have their way they will turn Scotland into a nasty little neo Stalinist P.C. riven state perched on the edge of Europe. Adam Smith, that hero of the great, and truly liberal, and outward looking, "Age Of Reason" must be spinning in his grave.

4 comments:

She's a thin-lipped harridan and no mistake. She is the lowland Caledonian version of another thin-lipped harridan, Ms Yvette Cooper, another who is prone to saying 'because it's the right thing to do' on every possible occasion.

My BS indicator tips into the red whenever someone in public life uses that phrase. In exactly the same way, when my elder daughter says 'to be honest, Daddy', I expect, let's say, a slight lack of candour in what follows, or what was said before............

John, I know nothing about this lady from across the pond, and I am not sure I understand why anyone wants to receive the sacrament of marriage in a church that has reviled them over centuries while simultaneously relying on them ("How many straight Anglican priests does it take to change a light bulb?" "Both of them.") But I do honor the instinct to grant basic equality to everyone. Gay people have been better models for me in my relationships than straight people, including my own parents, leading me to the conclusion that people who are "against gay marriage" should limit their opposition to a personal refusal to get gay-married themselves. Fairness and decency do not hinge on the results of polls and referendums (in the US, we are consistently reminded that eligible voters in the slave states 150 years ago would have voted thumpingly for the continuation of slavery).

I wouldn't want to be married by a cleric who opposed my marriage and was doing it under duress; why would gay people want that? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the current status of gay church weddings in Scotland. Is it simply not done, or left to the church discretion, or what? What bearing does this have on legal unions and spousal rights?

Dear Sledpress, I can only speak for this country and I don't think you will find many Churches that revile gays. The one I go to certainly does NOT. My point is that I would not want to see any member of the clergy prosecuted because he/she felt that as a matter of faith and belief that they could not officiate at a gay wedding. If we are to have a TRULY liberal and diverse society no-one should be forced to act against their beliefs. Replacing one tyrranny with another makes no sense. Gays can, at the moment have a Church Blessing anyway. You are right most gays would not want to be married by anyone doing it under duress but there must be protection for clergy who feel they could not officiate, just as there, happily is, nowadays for gays. Scotland,is at the moment, run by a class of people who feel that they are our moral superiors when their actions betray the fact that they are anything but. Again, Scotland is not a homophobic country and a growing number of my countrymen and women are getting tired of being lectured to by people who day and daily seek to interfere in personal matters of heart and soul. Take care, Sledpress and thank you for your considered and intelligent comments